Any Atheist Republicans Here? Why?!!!

Come out of your closet and take your licks. How can you back an explicitly pro-religion party that thinks women are second-class citizens, chattels of their husbands and The State, and who favors widening the gap between the rich and non-rich even more?

I don't like to generalize, but I will. Republicans seem to me to be individuals who choose their individualism over anything else. So, if they believe their pet issue (be in their portfolio, their religion, hating minorities, hating the poor, whatever) is best served by the republican party, they back the party. They ignore the things they don't like. They don't care if the party hurts others, that's collateral damage, as long as their pet issue is the one they think is being supported. Even if in reality it isn't.

How many times have you heard "I'm fiscally conserviatve but socially liberal...and I vote republican"? That's the republican standard right there, making that choice. Choosing the money (even though the economy always seems to be better under Democrats, so I really don't get that) over all else.

What I find sad Matthew, and a blot on this country, is that the rich Republicans depend, for their election, on the poor, illiterate, poorly-educated American, and by throwing in a few key catch-phrases, such as, "No Gun Control!," "No Abortions!" "Mom and Apple Pie!" and more recently, "God Forever!" those Americans proudly vote them into office, despite the fact that they're going to get royally screwed for the next four years!

One has only to look at the collective education level of the majority of the Red states, to see that that's true.

There may not be any willing to speak up here, but I have met many such in other fora. At least I used to. The republican party may have finally gone so far that even the libertarian atheists aren't willing to coexist with them anymore.

It's not surprising, considering that when the Latin language was still in use, no one had ever heard of a virus, but in my years of Latin, I was always taught that the plural of any word ending in "us," was "ii," words ending in "um" were pluralized by changing the "um" to "a" (as in "fora"), and singular words ending in "a," by changing it to "ae," i.e., "algae." If the Wikipedia article is true, and I noticed it was cited for lack of substantiation, then I would have to bet that even my Latin instructor was unaware of the exception. I will continue to use it in the future, until I know for certain that it is incorrect, but just not with smart people.

Yes, I saw that codicil. :) Technically, according to Latin rules of plural construction, you are very correct. It just seems that the hoi poloi have not consistently adopted that usage. I'm all for it, but I wanted to do my homework first. :p